I really love the cover image of this Gudridz book.

My book used to be simple, white and purple, not like this.

I think the new cover image gives the book a completely different charm.

It attracts my attention at a glance and makes me want to pick it up and read it immediately.

The colors and design on the cover are very harmonious, creating a unique atmosphere.

Every time I look at this cover, I can't help but imagine the wonderful content inside the book.

I believe that this cover image will also attract more readers and make them fall in love with this book.

Overall, I am very satisfied with the new cover image of this book.

**Rhinoceros by Eugène Ionesco: A Deep Dive**

Rhinoceros, a play penned by Eugène Ionesco in 1959, holds a significant place in the world of drama. It was included in Martin Esslin's study of post-war avant-garde drama, The Theatre of the Absurd. However, some scholars argue that this label is too narrowly interpretative.

Over three acts, the residents of a small provincial French town transform into rhinoceroses. The only human who resists this mass metamorphosis is the central character, Bérenger. Initially, he is criticized for his drinking, tardiness, and slovenly lifestyle. Later, he faces criticism for his growing paranoia and obsession with the rhinoceroses.

This play is often seen as a response and criticism of the sudden rise of Fascism and Nazism before World War II. It delves into themes such as conformity, culture, fascism, responsibility, logic, mass movements, mob mentality, philosophy, and morality.

Rhinoceros, along with Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot, is considered one of the most representative examples of the Theatre of the Absurd. This type of theatre challenges the traditional rules of classical theatre, which had prevailed from Aristotle until the end of the nineteenth century. By discarding the accepted forms, the Theatre of the Absurd confronts the modern world's thought and philosophy, revealing the absurdity and meaninglessness of the modern human condition.

Eugène Ionesco was a leftist thinker who addressed social and political issues of his time in a critical manner in his works. His plays, such as The Lesson (1951), The Chairs (1952), The New Tenant (1957), Rhinoceros (1960), Exit the King (1962), Rhinoceros (1960), Tiresias and the Furies (1966), and Macbett (1972), have had a profound impact on the world stage.

Kraken is not a simple play.

Kraken is not a simple play.
In this work, Eugène Ionesco describes a world where people, despite all differences including lifestyle, thought, belief, and so on, are bound together by common interests that are not suitable for them. In Ionesco's world, human principles have been abandoned, and none of these principles that people would never have accepted under any circumstances before can no longer penetrate the skin of Kraken, and as a result, all those ideologies are blown away. Kraken is not suitable for all ages. Of course, my intention is specifically regarding the reader's ability to understand the matters discussed in the work from a certain age onwards. Otherwise, a child can also read it, laugh while reading, and after finishing, nothing but the name Kraken will remain in his mind.

The theme of the story of Kraken was not strange to me.
I had read about the dehumanization of man in its most beautiful form in the masterpiece of dear Kafka, and also about man's encounter with the subjugation of this world by other beings in the masterpiece of Mr. Karel Čapek under the title "War with the Newts" and also a smaller sample of it in "The Town of Cats" by dear Murakami. Every time I think about it, I see that no being lives in this world according to its own will, greed, and desire for power like humans, and is ready to take any action to survive, even if that action is against the principles and ideologies that it has fought for until the end.

Kraken was not a dull and worthless play.
Eugène Ionesco's attempt was to show his fear and anxiety about those epidemics that suddenly appear and drive human energy aimlessly towards a common goal.
Here, it is necessary to, with a vivid memory of dear Abbas, quote his words from the book "Fereydoon Had Three Sons":
"We were aimless. We made a living from breaking and burning the wallet and didn't know what we wanted. The smoke had taken our eyes and we never asked ourselves why?"
In the story of Kraken, everything goes well and happily until suddenly an epidemic occurs. People gradually realize that they have entered their city where Kraken has never been seen before. At first, some deny it and easily pass over this matter. Some consider it a delusion and accuse those who claim to have seen this creature of lying, but the reality is that sooner or later they will understand what the matter is. Without having the ability to analyze the subject or distinguish between good and bad, people try to become one with the subject, and thus becoming Kraken becomes a trend. The remaining opponents are looking for a way to fight and maintain their position, but in the end, everyone turns into Kraken and only the hero of the story, the human, remains, who is finally surrounded by a world of Kraken. The Kraken encourage him to become one with them, and in his last words when the play comes to an end, he shouts:
I defend myself against all of you. I am the last human being and I will remain human until the end. I will not surrender.

Kraken was a dry play without literary adornments.
Neither the theme of the story had any appeal to me, nor did the author pay attention to his story as he should, nor did the translator of the book, Mr. Jalal Al-e-Ahmad, do this job well. Mr. Jalal is not a translator, and if he were alive and I saw him, I would say to him:
Dear sir, I beg you not to translate anymore.

You can download the PDF file of the Persian translation of the play from the link below.
https://t.me/reviewsbysoheil/662

21st of Mordad, 1402

My relationship with the Theatre of the Absurd is complex.

On the one hand, I greatly admire the works of authors such as Beckett, Jarry, or Ionesco. Aesthetically and intellectually, they seem very rewarding to me, and they always invite me to reflection.

On the other hand, their reading (or viewing, for those who are lucky) sometimes seems a bit tedious to me. And when I finish, although I have no doubt that what I have read I have liked and it has given me something, I cannot help but feel a bit cold. Perhaps my intellect cannot take more, who knows.

The last act of this play is especially clarifying, today just as it was 60 years ago. I do not even want to imagine what it would be like to experience firsthand the transformation of my entire environment into pachyderms. Would I be free from the temptation of being just another rhinoceros?

The play "The Chairs" is a symbol of human vitality. This vitality is closely related to the crisis of alienation that Europe experienced in the early 20th century, after World War I and the subsequent civil wars and crises.

In the absurd stage, there is always a space for hope. This is realized when "Bertin" decides to resist the chairs and not surrender to them in the end.

*****

Useful information about the text:

#Quoted

The idea of the play "The Unique of the Century" or "The Chairs" came to "Ionesco" through a speech he received from a friend living in Nazi Germany, where people flocked to see Hitler. Several incidents occurred, such as an old man's car hitting a small child who died on the spot, and a banner with a whole family on it falling and the mother, the maid, and a small dog died.....and other incidents. On the same night, the people of the city danced, drank, and celebrated until forty people died of alcohol poisoning. These are the incidents that led to the birth of the play "The Chairs," and its events took place in Munich, Germany in 1938.

"Eugène Ionesco" refers to Nazism in his play "The Chairs" without mentioning it by name. He symbolizes not only Nazism but also any failed, dictatorial, or reactionary idea or movement that goes against the current of reality and will not be stopped except by awareness. Ionesco used the chairs as a poetic metaphor for the savagery inherent in human beings, and also as an allusion to express the meaninglessness of the universe. The chairs together represent the tyranny of dictatorship and its barbarity, and the absurdity of reality that can produce such monstrosities. Ionesco described this play as an anti-Nazi play, and it is said that it embodies his feelings before leaving Romania in 1938, when many of his acquaintances among the intellectuals announced their loyalty and submission to the fascist and Nazi movements before and after World War II. However, the reason that really drove him to write it is simply not a direct criticism of Nazi terror, but rather the revelation of the mentality of those who submitted to that Nazism and responded to its ideas and values. Therefore, the coming of the chairs, if we can use this expression, is exploited here as a kind of appropriate symbolism to express that horror that was produced by the emergence of Nazism and fascism alike.

I Don't Follow You (!)

In life, there are often times when we hear the phrase "I don't follow you." This simple statement can carry a lot of meaning. It could mean that we don't understand what someone is saying, or that we don't agree with their观点. Maybe we are confused by their actions or the path they are taking.

When we say "I don't follow you," it's important to communicate clearly why we feel this way. We should try to explain our confusion or disagreement in a respectful and honest manner. This can help to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts.

Sometimes, not following someone can also be a good thing. It means that we are thinking for ourselves and making our own decisions. We don't have to blindly follow the crowd or do what others tell us to do. We can chart our own course and pursue our own dreams.

So, the next time you find yourself saying "I don't follow you," take a moment to think about what it really means and how you can best communicate your thoughts and feelings.

It's a strange book....

First of all, the first and last two interviews in the book were very good. It showed that Ionesco presented his views on theater, art, and philosophy. There was also a short text at the end of the book called "The Horrible Reality of Old Age" which was excellent. It was really amazing. It even evoked a bad feeling and the boredom of old age in someone like me who is 18 years old. And the subject of the book itself was at least not very new for me... the transformation of humans into rhinoceroses. It was an old version of "Resident Evil" and zombie movies. But what was different was the way of narration. The story was advanced very strongly. At the beginning of the story, everyone knows that they are imprisoned, they hate it, but we see that at the end of the book, in their opinion, becoming a rhinoceros is better than being a human. In a very simple way, the rhinoceros was a symbol of eliminated ideologies. The beliefs that they think everything except themselves is wrong. I think what Ionesco meant by the rhinoceros was fascists.

When the correct belief is in the minority, exactly like when the wrong belief is in the minority, this ability to determine right and wrong thinking has always been witnessed in history.

At the beginning of their appearance, literary works with a certain set of thoughts are criticized by society. However, when they start to become powerful, these criticisms decrease until even the last opponents correctly doubt their own beliefs and are involuntarily assimilated into the group!

This phenomenon shows that the power of ideas can gradually change people's perspectives and attitudes. It also emphasizes the importance of having the courage to坚持正确的信念even when they are in the minority.

Moreover, it reminds us that we should be open-minded and willing to consider different viewpoints, as they may hold the key to progress and innovation.

In conclusion, the evolution of ideas and the response of society to them are complex and dynamic processes that shape our world and our understanding of it.

The Abduction of Anahita

The first scene presents a chaotic market scene of various human groups. The grocer and the coffee shop keeper, who are desperate to attract customers at any price, the housewife who is engaged in chaos, the old man with a temper, Jean with his hasty decisions and sense of right, the logician with his claim of male rationality but having nothing but pompous words to say.

Among this crowd, Branjeh is an outsider, a foreigner from everywhere and seeking refuge in general. While the others, with self-confidence and a sense of right, are engaged in senseless discussions and point fingers of accusation at each other, he listens and endures. But this patience wears thin and gets involved with Jean.

What in this society is in harmony with the human values that we have always heard of? What is it in these people that makes them not only the noblest of creatures but also a superior race?

In the next scene, we see Branjeh in the work environment. Again, there is boastfulness and senseless discussions, and people without trust who take advantage of every opportunity for work and sexual exploitation.

In the third scene, Branjeh, with a kind heart, is ready to apologize to Jean's home and witnesses Jean's transformation from a human to a brute. Jean initially denies this transformation, but as before, he has another intention in his words and in his heart. He has chosen to become a brute because the values of life are more in line with being a brute, and he expects to be stronger. When society is like a jungle, is it better to be a human or a brute?

One by one, people choose whether to be a brute or a human?

What reason does the first person who accepts this transformation have? I don't know.

How much doubt and hesitation he has in his heart, I can't say.

But as the number of brutes gradually increases, people choose to be brutes without hesitation and with more eagerness.

Everyone who leaves the society of humans does so for a reason, some out of love for power, some out of excessive hopelessness, and finally, some out of fear of being alone in human society. The only one who remains is Branjeh. He, who initially felt alone in human society, is now even more alone than before. He is scared, hopeless, crying, but still believing in his choice.

In a society where all citizens willingly transform into rhinoceroses, the hero of the work gradually transforms into a human.

Berenice is a disappointed hero, without interests, alienated and observed in the whirlwind of life, which drags him into drinking, entertainment, and melancholy. Temperamental and unproductive, he argues that life is nothing but a product of the subconscious, defined by desires regardless of ethics or logic.

However, when all his fellow citizens, succumbing to primitive instincts, transform into rhinoceroses, integrated into the wild, unrestrained nature and the safety of the homogeneous crowd, he is the only one who will resist, actually experiencing the opposite transformation. And although he is ready to be dragged by the dynamics of the wild herd, in the end he will stand alone upright against the crowd. In a powerful allegory in which individuality clashes with conformity to the common sense.

\\n  The First Reading\\n
February 2, 2015
The play "Kharatiyat". It always leaves people with the problem and they talk about shells that neither nourish nor sing from hunger. The Kharatiyat are those who go with the flow. Strangely, the one who does not go with the flow is the uneducated person who used to postpone his education out of laziness. And it is he who decided to defend his humanity. Since knowledge and culture are only an obstacle to a person if he himself is the obstacle. How many a scholar in India with a master's and a doctorate degree is found worshipping the cow and worshipping people. I really liked the play. UNESCO is very distinguished in the absurd theatre. His introduction of his name in the conversation made me laugh.

I borrowed Mr. "Mohammad Hayati's" translation from the library and read it. I found that it didn't exist in Goderiz. But since the number of its pages was similar to this version, I added Jalal Al-e Ahmad's abominable translation. If you see any book with Jalal Al-e Ahmad's translation, run away.

Regarding the play itself, I must say that I had higher expectations. It's not that it was bad, but I feel that the author dedicated so much to literature, philosophy, and logic that he got lost and wasn't very successful in conveying the concept. That is, he used symbols and concepts too much.

Of course, the possibility that I didn't understand this work well is also very high.